Re: RFD: remove talk.current-events moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
imp
NEW => news.groups,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,alt.config
Followup-To: ____ you and the followup you rode in on!
Big 8 Management Board wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> remove talk.current-events
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the moderated
> newsgroup talk.current-events.
1: Remove the moderated flag.
2: Keep the group.
3: Problem solved.
What is wrong with yous peoples? Current events is not a topic to
discuss on usenet now? Y'all are getting more ____ed up by the day.
If yous peoples... yous bambi peoples... attempt to remove this
perfectly valid and useful news group, then you will force the alt
group peoples to expedite the annexation of all rogue bambi groups.
> PROCEDURE:
>
> The B8MB plans to begin voting on this proposal after five days. Please
> offer any final discussion or comments before the end of this waiting
> period. Voting may take up to one week (7 days); a result will be
> posted
> following the end of the voting period.
>
> All discussion of this proposal should be posted to
> news.groups.proposals.
Well, of course; that group is bambi-moderated, as are all three of
the newsgroups this flapdoodle was posted to. Including the followup
bambi-maneuver contrived to guard against any opposition to your
vacuous idiocrities.
> The full group removal procedure is documented here:
>
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup
>
>
> RATIONALE: remove talk.current-events
Rationale? I can not believe this word was used here.
> While the group was successful for a year or two, there has been little
> to
> no traffic in the last year, and there is no indication that this will
> change in the future.
>
> The current moderators have agreed that it is not worth salvaging. We
> propose to remove the group.
>
>
> HISTORY:
>
> talk.current-events was created in September 2006.
>
>
> DISTRIBUTION:
>
> This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.announce.newgroups (moderated)
> news.groups.proposals (moderated)
> talk.current-events (moderated)
>
>
> PROPONENT:
>
> Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org>
Tim Skirvin? Who put you up to this? Come on, you can tell us.
--
RATIONAL, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those
of observation, experience and reflection.
Peter J Ross
Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
<...>
> The full group removal procedure is documented here:
>
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup
Where is the documentation for beginning discussion with the Last Call
for Comments?
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Peter J Ross
<i...@tioat.net> wrote:
[xpost trimmed]
> Big 8 Management Board wrote:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> remove talk.current-events
>>
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the moderated
>> newsgroup talk.current-events.
>
> 1: Remove the moderated flag.
> 2: Keep the group.
> 3: Problem solved.
Why have yet another unmoderated Big-8 flame group? Aren't places like
soc.men, talk.politics and most of soc.culture.* enough?
> What is wrong with yous peoples? Current events is not a topic to
> discuss on usenet now? Y'all are getting more ____ed up by the day.
There was never any justification for the talk.current-events group.
The nearest thing to justification was the theory that if they built
the group, users would come. Artificial respiration was applied to
talk.current-events by those who had an interest in making it succeed
(just as happened with soc.men.moderated, news.admin.moderation and a
few other groups), but as usual it didn't work.
People are discussing current events elsewhere but have shown no
interest in moving to talk.current-events.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, which is hardly worth expressing,
since it's obvious that the decision has already been taken. The fact
that I happen to agree with the decision doesn't mean that its
suddenness isn't alarming.
Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to reading about how the failure of
talk.current-events was, in some higher sense, really a success.
Some Guy
> > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the
> > moderated newsgroup talk.current-events.
>
> 1: Remove the moderated flag.
> 2: Keep the group.
> 3: Problem solved.
All I see is spam postings. How do they get posted in a supposedly
moderated newsgroup?
> What is wrong with yous peoples? Current events is not a topic
> to discuss on usenet now? Y'all are getting more ____ed up by
> the day.
Maybe there might be some actual, real traffic in that group if it
wasn't moderated.
Who's the moderator anyways?
imp
> In news.groups on Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:04:45 +0000 (UTC), imp
><i...@tioat.net> wrote:
>
> [xpost trimmed]
>
>> Big 8 Management Board wrote:
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> remove talk.current-events
>>>
>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the moderated
>>> newsgroup talk.current-events.
>>
>> 1: Remove the moderated flag.
>> 2: Keep the group.
>> 3: Problem solved.
>
> Why have yet another unmoderated Big-8 flame group? Aren't places like
> soc.men, talk.politics and most of soc.culture.* enough?
I'm assuming that the activity in the group was not helped by being
moderated. And the definition of flame or toxicity does vary from
person to person. What some people call flame, others may call
spirited debate. We can debate this... I'm sure. ;)
If this group is "allowed" to exist and it does in fact turn out to
be yet another flame group, then it might even be said that it does,
after all, have a purpose under the sun. And why are we concerned
about the type of discussion in *any* usenet newsgroup; is it not
sufficient that it is simply being used?
>> What is wrong with yous peoples? Current events is not a topic to
>> discuss on usenet now? Y'all are getting more ____ed up by the day.
>
> There was never any justification for the talk.current-events group.
> The nearest thing to justification was the theory that if they built
> the group, users would come. Artificial respiration was applied to
> talk.current-events by those who had an interest in making it succeed
> (just as happened with soc.men.moderated, news.admin.moderation and a
> few other groups), but as usual it didn't work.
I'm having some difficulty coming to terms with the concept of a
talk newsgroup for current events being unworthy on usenet.
> People are discussing current events elsewhere but have shown no
> interest in moving to talk.current-events.
>
> Anyway, that's just my opinion, which is hardly worth expressing,
> since it's obvious that the decision has already been taken. The fact
> that I happen to agree with the decision doesn't mean that its
> suddenness isn't alarming.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to reading about how the failure of
> talk.current-events was, in some higher sense, really a success.
I was going to mention that "LAST CALL" deal popping up like that,
but figured I had missed the discussion elsewhere.
Dave Sill
Some Guy wrote:
>
> All I see is spam postings. How do they get posted in a supposedly
> moderated newsgroup?
It's robomoderated. If it passes the spam filter, it's posted.
> Maybe there might be some actual, real traffic in that group if it
> wasn't moderated.
No, the moderation was only used to filter spam.
> Who's the moderator anyways?
As it says in the RFD, Tim Skirvin.
-Dave
Dave Sill
>
> I'm assuming that the activity in the group was not helped by being
> moderated.
I don't think there's any evidence for that assumption. The group was
robomoderated only to block spam.
> I'm having some difficulty coming to terms with the concept of a
> talk newsgroup for current events being unworthy on usenet.
Me too, but it's dead on the vine.
> I was going to mention that "LAST CALL" deal popping up like that,
> but figured I had missed the discussion elsewhere.
RFDs going directly to Last Call are the current implementation of the
fast track. The Board has no objections and see no need for discussion,
but does allow a period during which unforeseen objections could be raised.
-Dave
Peter J Ross
<da...@sill.org> wrote:
> Some Guy wrote:
>
>> Who's the moderator anyways?
>
> As it says in the RFD, Tim Skirvin.
"The current moderators have agreed that it is not worth salvaging. We
propose to remove the group."
Message-ID: <1ixexoc.1xgjp421jcw9zN%bo...@big-8.org>
We were amused when we read this after breakfast this morning. We
nearly choked on our second cup of tea.
imp
> imp wrote:
>>
>> I'm assuming that the activity in the group was not helped by being
>> moderated.
>
> I don't think there's any evidence for that assumption. The group was
> robomoderated only to block spam.
And *they* said those robots all agreed. AI is something that has
always fascinated me. Are there any plans to give them a seat on the
board?
>> I'm having some difficulty coming to terms with the concept of a
>> talk newsgroup for current events being unworthy on usenet.
>
> Me too, but it's dead on the vine.
>
>> I was going to mention that "LAST CALL" deal popping up like that,
>> but figured I had missed the discussion elsewhere.
>
> RFDs going directly to Last Call are the current implementation of the
> fast track. The Board has no objections and see no need for discussion,
> but does allow a period during which unforeseen objections could be raised.
Well, so far, it looks like I'm the only one objecting. I'll STFU
unless someone else comes along that would like to see that group
survive the decision of these robots.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Auto pilot?
imp
> bo...@big-8.org (Big 8 Management Board) writes:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> remove talk.current-events
>
> therefore the moderator-of-record) of talk.current-events, and I think
> that the group should be deleted. I've talked with the rest of the
> moderators, and they all agree.
The robots talk? This is like way cool.
Adam H. Kerman
><...>
>>The full group removal procedure is documented here:
>> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup
>Where is the documentation for beginning discussion with the Last Call
>for Comments?
Excuse me. When I objected to basic errors in RFDs, like misstated
revision histories and errors in crossposting, I was labeled an
obstructionist.
Here you are pointing out an error in procedure: Obstructionist.
Peter J Ross
<da...@sill.org> wrote:
> imp wrote:
>>
>> I'm assuming that the activity in the group was not helped by being
>> moderated.
>
> I don't think there's any evidence for that assumption. The group was
> robomoderated only to block spam.
Weren't all crossposts blocked?
<...>
> RFDs going directly to Last Call are the current implementation of the
> fast track.
What fast track?
<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?do=search&id=%22fast+track%22>
"Results
Nothing was found."
If something is a "current implementation", why isn't it documented?
I've been trying very, very hard to be nice recently, but here you are
moving goalposts again.
Are proponents who aren't surnamed Skirvin offered the benefit of a
"fast track", or is the "fast track" yet another example of the
Board's continuing deference to its increasingly kooky ex-Chairman?
> The Board has no objections and see no need for discussion,
This is sheer hubris. The Board are not infallible.
> but does allow a period during which unforeseen objections could be raised.
The period isn't long enough if the 1st RFD and the LCC are the same.
If you extend the "fast track" period from five days to ten and
document it adequately, I'll have no further objections. Ten days is
the minimum period in uk.*, where the "fast track" seems to work
pretty well.
I haven't thought of any objections to rmgrouping tc-e, but both Imp
and Adam have, and I might have thought of some objections of my own
if I hadn't been told explicitly that "the Board ... see no reason for
discussion" (which, btw, I'd already guessed).
Is the existence of tc-e *so* harmful that an extra five days for
discussion can't be allowed?
Peter J Ross
<i...@tioat.net> wrote:
> Dave Sill wrote:
>> imp wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm assuming that the activity in the group was not helped by being
>>> moderated.
>>
>> I don't think there's any evidence for that assumption. The group was
>> robomoderated only to block spam.
>
> And *they* said those robots all agreed. AI is something that has
> always fascinated me.
Why is AI something that has always fascinated you, imp?
> Are there any plans to give them a seat on the board?
How would you feel if there were any plans to give them a seat on the
board?
>>> I'm having some difficulty coming to terms with the concept of a
>>> talk newsgroup for current events being unworthy on usenet.
>>
>> Me too, but it's dead on the vine.
>>
>>> I was going to mention that "LAST CALL" deal popping up like that,
>>> but figured I had missed the discussion elsewhere.
>>
>> RFDs going directly to Last Call are the current implementation of the
>> fast track. The Board has no objections and see no need for discussion,
>> but does allow a period during which unforeseen objections could be raised.
>
> Well, so far, it looks like I'm the only one objecting. I'll STFU
> unless someone else comes along that would like to see that group
> survive the decision of these robots.
Adam has objected in NGP. He thinks the moderators (i.e. Tim Skirvin
and the imaginary moderators who support him in email, it seems)
should make more of an effort to promote the group.
And I've objected to the idea that removing the group is so urgent
that only five days' discussion can be permitted.
ISTM that so far more people have objected, one way or another, to
this proposal in public than have supported it.
I wonder what Tim would think about a proposal to rmgroup
news.admin.net-abuse.policy, another group he moderates? It's at least
as dead as t.c-e.
Peter J Ross
<i...@tioat.net> wrote:
> The robots talk? This is like way cool.
Right, we've had our fun, but it seems that there are four human
moderators.
Tim Skirvin
Dave Sill
Kathy Morgan
edward ohare
Source: <http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/tce/>
It's odd that Dave Sill gave the impression that Skirvin was the only
moderator, but no doubt he merely expressed himself unclearly, just as
there's no doubt that my suggestion that an extra five days should be
allowed for discussions such as these is an example of "obstructionist
hate" and further proof that I'm an "asshole" and a "liar".
Peter J Ross
Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>
>><...>
>
>>>The full group removal procedure is documented here:
>
>>> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup
>
>>Where is the documentation for beginning discussion with the Last Call
>>for Comments?
Note that according to Mr Sill there's a current implementation of
some kind of "fast track" procedure that doesn't seem to be documented
anywhere at all. I think this "fast track" has recently been made up
for Skirvin's benefit, and I'm therefore truly sorry to see the
Bambies continuing to defer to the kook-oo in their nest. His lack of
visibility on Usenet evidently doesn't mean, as I'd hoped, that his
influence on Bamby policy has diminished.
> Excuse me. When I objected to basic errors in RFDs, like misstated
> revision histories and errors in crossposting, I was labeled an
> obstructionist.
>
> Here you are pointing out an error in procedure: Obstructionist.
I can't be an obstructionist. It's my turn this week to be a liar.
It's 2Rowdy's turn to be an obstructionist, and he's doing excellent
obstructionist work by posting nothing at all.
Jeremy Nixon
> Are proponents who aren't surnamed Skirvin offered the benefit of a
> "fast track", or is the "fast track" yet another example of the
> Board's continuing deference to its increasingly kooky ex-Chairman?
In this case, he is the moderator of the group and is requesting its
removal.
> I haven't thought of any objections to rmgrouping tc-e, but both Imp
> and Adam have, and I might have thought of some objections of my own
> if I hadn't been told explicitly that "the Board ... see no reason for
> discussion" (which, btw, I'd already guessed).
>
> Is the existence of tc-e *so* harmful that an extra five days for
> discussion can't be allowed?
When the moderator of a group requests its removal, it seems pretty
straightforward. The only objection seems to be "but wouldn't it be
nice if people actually used the group?" Yes, it would; it's been
on my subscription list since it was created. But no one is posting
there. It was never moderated for content, or by manual human
approval.
If you'd like to take over the group, feel free to volunteer. The
current moderator doesn't want it any more, so unless someone else
wants it, it's going to be dead one way or the other. Really, the
only objection to its removal that could make a difference would
be "wait, I'd like to take it over, please".
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
Member of the Big-8 Management Board
Peter J Ross
<~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are proponents who aren't surnamed Skirvin offered the benefit of a
>> "fast track", or is the "fast track" yet another example of the
>> Board's continuing deference to its increasingly kooky ex-Chairman?
>
> In this case, he is the moderator of the group and is requesting its
> removal.
You and Dave Sill are both wrong. There are three other moderators.
Dave Sill is one of them, and he was allegedly consulted.
I was wrong too, since I was easily led to believe that there was only
one moderator, and made fun of Skirvin without (for once)
justification.
>> I haven't thought of any objections to rmgrouping tc-e, but both Imp
>> and Adam have, and I might have thought of some objections of my own
>> if I hadn't been told explicitly that "the Board ... see no reason for
>> discussion" (which, btw, I'd already guessed).
>>
>> Is the existence of tc-e *so* harmful that an extra five days for
>> discussion can't be allowed?
>
> When the moderator of a group requests its removal, it seems pretty
> straightforward. The only objection seems to be "but wouldn't it be
> nice if people actually used the group?" Yes, it would; it's been
> on my subscription list since it was created. But no one is posting
> there. It was never moderated for content, or by manual human
> approval.
>
> If you'd like to take over the group, feel free to volunteer. The
> current moderator doesn't want it any more, so unless someone else
> wants it, it's going to be dead one way or the other. Really, the
> only objection to its removal that could make a difference would
> be "wait, I'd like to take it over, please".
You seem to have have mistaken me for somebody who thinks
talk.current-events has (or ever had) a good reason to exist.
I said it was a bad idea when Skirvin first proposed it, and I'm
pleased to have been proved right.
I have no objections to rmgrouping this newsgroup. My only objection
is to the haste with which the rmgrouping RFD is being conducted.
People who disagree with you and me should be given enough time to
speak.
I've suggested that the period for discussion in the newly-invented
"fast track" cases be extended from 5 days to 10 days. I've pointed
out that 10 days is used by uk.*, where a "fast track" system seems to
work. But no doubt I'm merely exhibiting "obstructionist hate" by
making such a suggestion.
Adam H. Kerman
>When the moderator of a group requests its removal, it seems pretty
>straightforward. The only objection seems to be "but wouldn't it be
>nice if people actually used the group?" Yes, it would; it's been
>on my subscription list since it was created. But no one is posting
>there. It was never moderated for content, or by manual human
>approval.
Excuse me. Did you read my objection? I even bothered to post it to the
Treehouse. You misstated my objection.
Kathy Morgan
> I'm having some difficulty coming to terms with the concept of a
> talk newsgroup for current events being unworthy on usenet.
It's not that a talk newsgroup for current events is unworthy, it's that
it is not being used.
--
Kathy
Mark Kramer
If you build it, they will come.
If you tear it down, they will never come.
Do you want to build up the number of people who use Usenet, or tear
it down? Wouldn't it be more productive for the former to promote the use
of the group instead of destroy the group?
Peter J Ross
<c28...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
Yeah, and why not also newgroup talk.abc, talk.def, talk.ghi and
similar groups just in case somebody wants to use them?
You can't be serious.
Jeremy Nixon
> In news.groups on 31 Mar 2009 21:31:35 GMT, Jeremy Nixon
> <~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
>
>> In this case, he is the moderator of the group and is requesting its
>> removal.
>
> You and Dave Sill are both wrong. There are three other moderators.
> Dave Sill is one of them, and he was allegedly consulted.
Well, he indicated that the other moderators were consulted. I have no
reason to think that was untrue.
> You seem to have have mistaken me for somebody who thinks
> talk.current-events has (or ever had) a good reason to exist.
Not really -- I was speaking in general terms. Sorry about that.
> I have no objections to rmgrouping this newsgroup. My only objection
> is to the haste with which the rmgrouping RFD is being conducted.
> People who disagree with you and me should be given enough time to
> speak.
>
> I've suggested that the period for discussion in the newly-invented
> "fast track" cases be extended from 5 days to 10 days. I've pointed
> out that 10 days is used by uk.*, where a "fast track" system seems to
> work.
Right -- were it not a moderated group whose removal is requested by its
moderator, I would agree that it would be inappropriate to jump to LCC.
Jeremy Nixon
> Excuse me. Did you read my objection? I even bothered to post it to the
> Treehouse. You misstated my objection.
I did read it. I thought you were saying "go find people to use the
group instead of removing it."
Brian Mailman
> In news.groups on Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:54:23 +0000 (UTC), imp
> <i...@tioat.net> wrote:
>> And *they* said those robots all agreed. AI is something that has
>> always fascinated me.
>
> Why is AI something that has always fascinated you, imp?
I don't think the answer will be surprising.
[...]
> And I've objected to the idea that removing the group is so urgent
> that only five days' discussion can be permitted.
Well it just demonstrates that "fast track" is the English translation
of "pro forma."
B/
Brian Mailman
Gee, didn't I just read Jeremy Nixon saying YOU were?
B/
Adam H. Kerman
>>Excuse me. Did you read my objection? I even bothered to post it to the
>>Treehouse. You misstated my objection.
>I did read it. I thought you were saying "go find people to use the
>group instead of removing it."
So when you said,
The only objection seems to be "but wouldn't it be nice if
people actually used the group?"
that was a misstatement of my opinion, yes?
imp
The first thing I noticed when this came up was that the newsgroup
was moderated and that made me think the moderated status was the
problem until it was pointed out that it was only a bot to reduce
spam. The topic of the group sounds appropriate for usenet but
apparently that isn't enough. There is no interest in that group
and no reason to keep it in the list. In my opinion. ;)
imp
How do you promote a newsgroup? There is interest in a topic or
there isn't. Interest in a topic promotes the creation of a
newsgroup. Lack of interest is about the only valid reason to remove
a newsgroup that I can think of. Or will thing of. I don't even want
to think about this in terms of morality or legalities etc.
I don't think this is as much of a problem in the bambi groups but
in the alt and free groups the fact that there are many thousands
of unused groups only creates confusion. So, in this case, building
it makes them go away. I know this is going to get me in trouble,
but I wish there was a process in place to prune the alt and free
newsgroups like the bambies are attempting to do. The signed control
messages, to me, sounds like a great system. It's entirely based on
trust and depends on each news admin to decide if that trust is
worthy.
So, what I'm saying is, if you tear it down, they will come.
To do this in a way that does not cause people to think there is
some kind of shadowy secret society behind this is key and if
people trust that this is being done for the good of usenet, then
there shouldn't be too much talk of conspiracy.
And this is coming from someone who has made quite a ruckus over
rmgroups lately. A few years ago this would create some interest. I
don't see that now. Usenet is changing. Fast. Can this change be
directed so that usenet will benefit? Or is it too late?
Steve Bonine
> So, what I'm saying is, if you tear it down, they will come.
I said much the same thing about a year ago. My feeling was that if you
had a hierarchy that was created with a bunch of newsgroups to support a
high-volume discussion on a topic, and the topic became much less
popular so that the discussion dropped off, pruning the hierarchy would
concentrate the discussion into the remaining groups and might salvage
it. I'd rather see one viable group to discuss a topic than twenty dead
groups in a hierarchy.
> To do this in a way that does not cause people to think there is
> some kind of shadowy secret society behind this is key and if
> people trust that this is being done for the good of usenet, then
> there shouldn't be too much talk of conspiracy.
The vast majority of Usenet users don't even know, much less care, about
the whole topic of newsgroup creation, removal, and reorganization. But
there is a sufficient number of individuals here in news.groups who hate
the individuals on the board, the idea that there is a board, and/or
just enjoy tossing stones that any attempt to move forward on a
significant pruning of the newsgroups list will result in a huge ruckus.
The board could ignore said ruckus and do what they think is right,
but they aren't likely to do that.
> And this is coming from someone who has made quite a ruckus over
> rmgroups lately. A few years ago this would create some interest. I
> don't see that now. Usenet is changing. Fast. Can this change be
> directed so that usenet will benefit? Or is it too late?
It's too late.
I say this for two reasons.
First, it's simply not worth the effort. It's a lot of work to process
the number of RFDs required to handle any significant change, and any
fast-path idea died months ago when it was buried by rhetoric in
news.groups. The cost is high and the benefit is low. As people will
point out, what's the harm of having unused groups in the list? That
question is answered above, but it doesn't matter; it's an excuse for
squabbling and that's all it takes to get folks fired up in news.groups.
So between the work required and the amount of controversy, nothing
tangible is likely to happen.
Second, even if the board decided on changes to the canonical list of
groups and sent out signed control messages to remove the ones that it
deemed "dead", very little would happen. A few providers would honor
them, but most Usenet users would see little difference. It might even
make the situation worse, with users posting into newsgroups that other
users couldn't see.
I thought this was a great cause about a year ago. Now I realize that
it's dead.
K. A. Cannon
<slrngt4ro...@pjr.gotdns.org> in news.groups on Tue, 31 Mar 2009
20:29:25 +0100:
<snip>
>further proof that I'm an "asshole" and a "liar".
Like further proof is needed.
--
K. A. Cannon
kevin.a.cannon at gmail dot com
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia.
-Charles Schultz
COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
http://www.themonastery.org/dev/cert/ulc_certificate_view.swf?id=10010810040414
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>I'm having some difficulty coming to terms with the concept of a
>>>>talk newsgroup for current events being unworthy on usenet.
>>>It's not that a talk newsgroup for current events is unworthy, it's that
>>>it is not being used.
>>If you build it, they will come.
>>If you tear it down, they will never come.
>>Do you want to build up the number of people who use Usenet, or tear
>>it down? Wouldn't it be more productive for the former to promote the use
>>of the group instead of destroy the group?
>How do you promote a newsgroup? There is interest in a topic or
>there isn't. Interest in a topic promotes the creation of a
>newsgroup. Lack of interest is about the only valid reason to remove
>a newsgroup that I can think of. Or will thing of. I don't even want
>to think about this in terms of morality or legalities etc.
Not quite.
Yes, the topic in question should be well discussed among Usenet users
for the proposed group to stand a chance for success. Also, the
proponent has to make a reasonably determination that organizing
discussion in the proposed group will improve discussion, rather than
where it's currently taking place. It also has to be a narrow topic that
can be discussed independently of related topics, else discussion should
be considered to be taking place where it belongs.
So let's say the proponent has a good rationale for the group. The
important step is promoting the group among those discussing the topic.
Should the proponent drop the ball on that, the group will likely fail.
It's a myth that discussion magically finds its way into a group just
because the proponent or hierarchy administrator sent a newgroup
message attempting to start the group.
>I don't think this is as much of a problem in the bambi groups but
>in the alt and free groups the fact that there are many thousands
>of unused groups only creates confusion.
It's the same problem throughout Usenet. The nature of discussion
doesn't change from one group to the next.
The real problem with chat newsgroups, which applies to every talk.*
group and a great many alt groups, is that they really have no topic. To
be successful, they need continuing promotion.
If Tim wanted yet another current events newsgroup to work, then he
should have been looking for current events discussion of stories he
wanted to see discussed in the group in other Usenet groups and
suggested that they might try his group.
It's unreasonable to expect there to be a permanent audience in any
topic-less newsgroup.
>So, in this case, building it makes them go away. I know this is going
>to get me in trouble, but I wish there was a process in place to prune
>the alt and free newsgroups like the bambies are attempting to do.
Good grief, it would make a bad situation work. Then EVERY proponent
would act like the Bambies. "Let's just try it" would be the rationale
for every single newsgroup, because after all, they can be removed and
what little discussion takes place in them is easily redirected
elsewhere. You think 1000s of shit groups were newgrouped already? We'd
have 10 times that number, if not 100 times that number, if groups could
be removed.
Oh, even in managed hierarchies, rmgroup messages aren't universally
honored. More servers take Bamby newgroup messages than rmgroup
messages, and fewer still take checkgroups. A mere handful of servers
presents Big 8 groups to their users as recognized by Bamby.
>The signed control messages, to me, sounds like a great system. It's
>entirely based on trust and depends on each news admin to decide if that
>trust is worthy.
But Bamby won't promote this either. They don't actually care.
imp
> imp wrote:
>
>> So, what I'm saying is, if you tear it down, they will come.
>
> I said much the same thing about a year ago. My feeling was that if you
> had a hierarchy that was created with a bunch of newsgroups to support a
> high-volume discussion on a topic, and the topic became much less
> popular so that the discussion dropped off, pruning the hierarchy would
> concentrate the discussion into the remaining groups and might salvage
> it. I'd rather see one viable group to discuss a topic than twenty dead
> groups in a hierarchy.
That would be the main reason; to focus the discussion better and
with less "dead" groups it would help in finding the active ones.
>> To do this in a way that does not cause people to think there is
>> some kind of shadowy secret society behind this is key and if
>> people trust that this is being done for the good of usenet, then
>> there shouldn't be too much talk of conspiracy.
>
> The vast majority of Usenet users don't even know, much less care, about
> the whole topic of newsgroup creation, removal, and reorganization. But
> there is a sufficient number of individuals here in news.groups who hate
> the individuals on the board, the idea that there is a board, and/or
> just enjoy tossing stones that any attempt to move forward on a
> significant pruning of the newsgroups list will result in a huge ruckus.
> The board could ignore said ruckus and do what they think is right,
> but they aren't likely to do that.
The board? The bambi board? All of usenet? This is funny, but only
because we know what the response to that would be.
>> And this is coming from someone who has made quite a ruckus over
>> rmgroups lately. A few years ago this would create some interest. I
>> don't see that now. Usenet is changing. Fast. Can this change be
>> directed so that usenet will benefit? Or is it too late?
>
> It's too late.
>
> I say this for two reasons.
>
> First, it's simply not worth the effort. It's a lot of work to process
> the number of RFDs required to handle any significant change, and any
> fast-path idea died months ago when it was buried by rhetoric in
> news.groups. The cost is high and the benefit is low. As people will
> point out, what's the harm of having unused groups in the list? That
> question is answered above, but it doesn't matter; it's an excuse for
> squabbling and that's all it takes to get folks fired up in news.groups.
> So between the work required and the amount of controversy, nothing
> tangible is likely to happen.
>
> Second, even if the board decided on changes to the canonical list of
> groups and sent out signed control messages to remove the ones that it
> deemed "dead", very little would happen. A few providers would honor
> them, but most Usenet users would see little difference. It might even
> make the situation worse, with users posting into newsgroups that other
> users couldn't see.
>
> I thought this was a great cause about a year ago. Now I realize that
> it's dead.
I remember the talk about doing this and even long ago there were
people pondering the idea. What you said about the vast majority not
knowing or even caring about this is why I'm thinking the time might
be right to do something. All the admin groups are basically dead
compared to just a couple years ago. Who might do this and how is
the question. The board? The bambie board? Would they even want to?
We're talking newsgroups outside the bambi hierarchies. That's how
I'm looking at this anyway; the bambi groups are pristine compared
to the alt groups. And this says that, whether you like them or not,
they have a system that works and that system would be the one to
base any attempt at organizing the other areas of usenet.
imp
And that's why you need a system that can adjust to change. I think
it's unreasonable to require that a newsgroup be perceived as having
a permanent audience in order to create it. All the controversy is
based on having a system that is unable to keep up with the human
factor. The system needs to conform to what the users want; not the
other way around, which is what we have now. Computers are good at
automating things, if you let them, and the signed control message
system is the best method in place to do this now.
Tim would not need to be a clairvoyant if the system wasn't so
awkward and inflexible.
>>So, in this case, building it makes them go away. I know this is going
>>to get me in trouble, but I wish there was a process in place to prune
>>the alt and free newsgroups like the bambies are attempting to do.
>
> Good grief, it would make a bad situation work. Then EVERY proponent
> would act like the Bambies. "Let's just try it" would be the rationale
> for every single newsgroup, because after all, they can be removed and
> what little discussion takes place in them is easily redirected
> elsewhere. You think 1000s of shit groups were newgrouped already? We'd
> have 10 times that number, if not 100 times that number, if groups could
> be removed.
>
> Oh, even in managed hierarchies, rmgroup messages aren't universally
> honored. More servers take Bamby newgroup messages than rmgroup
> messages, and fewer still take checkgroups. A mere handful of servers
> presents Big 8 groups to their users as recognized by Bamby.
I think it would improve things. They have an accepted way to add
and remove groups. The signed control message system works. The
servers that don't use this system are just making their job more
difficult. What are they gaining by not accepting these checkgroups
and other signed control messages?
>>The signed control messages, to me, sounds like a great system. It's
>>entirely based on trust and depends on each news admin to decide if that
>>trust is worthy.
>
> But Bamby won't promote this either. They don't actually care.
They don't need to promote it; if the system works then it promotes
itself to anyone who wants to try something similar.
Steve Bonine
> We're talking newsgroups outside the bambi hierarchies. That's how
> I'm looking at this anyway; the bambi groups are pristine compared
> to the alt groups. And this says that, whether you like them or not,
> they have a system that works and that system would be the one to
> base any attempt at organizing the other areas of usenet.
I am in no way suggesting that anything be done about newsgroups outside
of the big-8, or that any sane person would attempt to do so.
imp
Noted.
Please accept my apology if I led you to believe that I was, in any
imaginable way, sane or unimpaired. If in some way you interpreted
what I said in my reply to you as suggesting that it was possible
you were a crazy fuck, like me, that certainly was not my intent.
Steve Bonine
Oh no, I didn't interpret what you said in any way personally. I
already know that I'm nothing more than a yappy lap dog. I was just
trying to clarify my position and limit it to the unlikely, rather than
the impossible.
Mark Kramer
>And that's why you need a system that can adjust to change. I think
>it's unreasonable to require that a newsgroup be perceived as having
>a permanent audience in order to create it.
I've never seen anyone say anything about a "permanent audience". "Existing
user base", yes.
>The system needs to conform to what the users want; not the
>other way around, which is what we have now.
Why?
>Computers are good at automating things, if you let them,
I think your anthropmorphism generator is overheating.
>The signed control message system works.
Yes, witness the universal appearance of ngp after how many years?
Adam H. Kerman
>>Not quite.
Actually, the system, if you are speaking of the effect of control
messages sent by hierarchy administrators, is somewhat inflexible. They
just don't have a lot of influence on the set of groups offered at
any particular server. Rmgroup messages are unlikely to be honored,
even if newgroup messages are honored.
That's the trouble. Usenet lacks central authority.
>I think it's unreasonable to require that a newsgroup be perceived as having
>a permanent audience in order to create it.
At this point, it doesn't matter. I made my comment that topic-less
newsgroups require continuing promotion. I had opposed this group to
begin with, but Tim wanted it and he gets what he wants, at least with
regard to what control messages are issued. Unless he works at it, he
cannot force discussion into a newsgroup.
>All the controversy is based on having a system that is unable to keep
>up with the human factor. The system needs to conform to what the users
>want; not the other way around, which is what we have now.
Well, if you think about it, groups are created on servers in which a
specific user requests creation of the group. I don't agree.
>Computers are good at automating things, if you let them, and the signed
>control message system is the best method in place to do this now.
That's not my call. That's not Bambi's call. It's up to particular
sites. It really doesn't have much to do with this discussion.
>Tim would not need to be a clairvoyant if the system wasn't so
>awkward and inflexible.
You've missed the point. Completely.
>>>So, in this case, building it makes them go away. I know this is going
>>>to get me in trouble, but I wish there was a process in place to prune
>>>the alt and free newsgroups like the bambies are attempting to do.
>>Good grief, it would make a bad situation work. Then EVERY proponent
>>would act like the Bambies. "Let's just try it" would be the rationale
>>for every single newsgroup, because after all, they can be removed and
>>what little discussion takes place in them is easily redirected
>>elsewhere. You think 1000s of shit groups were newgrouped already? We'd
>>have 10 times that number, if not 100 times that number, if groups could
>>be removed.
>>Oh, even in managed hierarchies, rmgroup messages aren't universally
>>honored. More servers take Bamby newgroup messages than rmgroup
>>messages, and fewer still take checkgroups. A mere handful of servers
>>presents Big 8 groups to their users as recognized by Bamby.
>I think it would improve things.
Whatever. It's up to the individual News sites. There's nothing to
discuss. No one has any influence over what a News site on foreign
network does. Subscrbibers have negligible influence over what the News
site does on the local network.
>They have an accepted way to add and remove groups. The signed control
>message system works. The servers that don't use this system are just
>making their job more difficult.
You've got that backwards. It's not THEIR job to make less work for
hierarchy administrators.
>>>The signed control messages, to me, sounds like a great system. It's
>>>entirely based on trust and depends on each news admin to decide if that
>>>trust is worthy.
>>But Bamby won't promote this either. They don't actually care.
>They don't need to promote it; if the system works then it promotes
>itself to anyone who wants to try something similar.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Roger L Hale
<peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It's odd that Dave Sill gave the impression that Skirvin was the only
>moderator, but no doubt he merely expressed himself unclearly, just as
>there's no doubt that my suggestion that an extra five days should be
>allowed for discussions such as these is an example of "obstructionist
>hate" and further proof that I'm an "asshole" and a "liar".
Oh, please. Now you're just being obstructionistic and hateful. By
definition. Even if it is someone else's turn this week.
[Aside: I wish people would keep their roles straight. My scorecard is
getting hard to read, with all the scratch-outs I'm having to make.]
Just another *ssh*le,
Roger 'spinclad' Hale
Peter J Ross
<~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<...>
>> I've suggested that the period for discussion in the newly-invented
>> "fast track" cases be extended from 5 days to 10 days. I've pointed
>> out that 10 days is used by uk.*, where a "fast track" system seems to
>> work.
>
> Right -- were it not a moderated group whose removal is requested by its
> moderator, I would agree that it would be inappropriate to jump to LCC.
There's now a suggestion from one of the moderators that an
alternative would be to find a new moderator or moderators.
What happens if somebody who would like to be a moderator reads that
suggestion on Sunday after working a busy six-day week? Oops! Too
late!
imp
For the hierarchies that are using the pgp verified system, I let
them have total control to do what they wish. I have seen no
problems with this and really don't expect to. If we weren't talking
about an international network then each site micromanaging every
newsgroup might work. English is the language I grew up with; I know
a little Spanish and some Japanese but not enough to carry on a
conversation with them or the French, Russian, Italia, Chinese,
Polish, etc., etc. and these folks are using this system. Why
shouldn't I just sit back and let them? Now when it comes to the alt
groups, that's a whole different game. And my game is trying to get
that system used there... and even in the free groups. I have no
idea what Tim would think about that but what the hell, I'll throw
it out there anyway.
> That's the trouble. Usenet lacks central authority.
And that's the main attraction for me.
>>I think it's unreasonable to require that a newsgroup be perceived as having
>>a permanent audience in order to create it.
>
> At this point, it doesn't matter. I made my comment that topic-less
> newsgroups require continuing promotion. I had opposed this group to
> begin with, but Tim wanted it and he gets what he wants, at least with
> regard to what control messages are issued. Unless he works at it, he
> cannot force discussion into a newsgroup.
>
>>All the controversy is based on having a system that is unable to keep
>>up with the human factor. The system needs to conform to what the users
>>want; not the other way around, which is what we have now.
>
> Well, if you think about it, groups are created on servers in which a
> specific user requests creation of the group. I don't agree.
If there's an active group around that a server doesn't carry then
of course it would be added if a user requests it. If we are talking
about say the alt groups and the bambi groups and various regional
hierarchies then this just doesn't make sense; there are thousands
of them. Who would have the time to add all of them to the list?
>>Computers are good at automating things, if you let them, and the signed
>>control message system is the best method in place to do this now.
>
> That's not my call. That's not Bambi's call. It's up to particular
> sites. It really doesn't have much to do with this discussion.
OK, I know we are in bambi territory but this isn't just about the
bambi groups. You may only be thinking bambi here but I'm thinking
in the more general aspect of usenet. I'm not really into the
personalities and politics going on with all this; my main interest
is simply making things easier and when I think of computers, I
think of automation. I feel no guilt watching them do the heavy
lifting. Let me kick back, that's what I do best.
>>Tim would not need to be a clairvoyant if the system wasn't so
>>awkward and inflexible.
>
> You've missed the point. Completely.
Another one of my strong points.
Yes it does. Trust me. ;)
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>Not quite.
But that's a decision that you made. You're in the minority. What you
are trying to discuss is not a network issue, but specific to how
individual sites are administered.
How these sites should be administered is irrelevant.
>>That's the trouble. Usenet lacks central authority.
>And that's the main attraction for me.
You don't seem to accept the fact that whether control messages are
processed at a particular site is up to that site's administrator. Nor
do you accept the fact that because it's a local decision and not a
decision of the hierarchy administrators, we must not speak of control
messages as if they were final authority, let alone the be-all and
end-all of the "system".
>>>I think it's unreasonable to require that a newsgroup be perceived as having
>>>a permanent audience in order to create it.
>>At this point, it doesn't matter. I made my comment that topic-less
>>newsgroups require continuing promotion. I had opposed this group to
>>begin with, but Tim wanted it and he gets what he wants, at least with
>>regard to what control messages are issued. Unless he works at it, he
>>cannot force discussion into a newsgroup.
>>>All the controversy is based on having a system that is unable to keep
>>>up with the human factor. The system needs to conform to what the users
>>>want; not the other way around, which is what we have now.
>>Well, if you think about it, groups are created on servers in which a
>>specific user requests creation of the group. I don't agree.
>If there's an active group around that a server doesn't carry then
>of course it would be added if a user requests it.
You're wrong; that's not a given.
>If we are talking about say the alt groups and the bambi groups and
>various regional hierarchies then this just doesn't make sense; there are
>thousands of them. Who would have the time to add all of them to the list?
Does not parse.
>>>Computers are good at automating things, if you let them, and the signed
>>>control message system is the best method in place to do this now.
>>That's not my call. That's not Bambi's call. It's up to particular
>>sites. It really doesn't have much to do with this discussion.
>OK, I know we are in bambi territory but this isn't just about the
>bambi groups. You may only be thinking bambi here but I'm thinking
>in the more general aspect of usenet.
I am not. You're really not paying attention to what I've written.
>I'm not really into the personalities and politics going on with all
>this; my main interest is simply making things easier and when I think
>of computers, I think of automation. I feel no guilt watching them do
>the heavy lifting. Let me kick back, that's what I do best.
You keep repeating this, but it's not relevant to the way Usenet
functions. I'm telling you that you do not describe Usenet.
>>>>>The signed control messages, to me, sounds like a great system. It's
>>>>>entirely based on trust and depends on each news admin to decide if that
>>>>>trust is worthy.
>>>>But Bamby won't promote this either. They don't actually care.
>>>They don't need to promote it; if the system works then it promotes
>>>itself to anyone who wants to try something similar.
>>That doesn't make any sense at all.
>Yes it does. Trust me. ;)
No, it absolutely does not make sense.
Peter J Ross
In news.groups on Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:53:40 +0000 (UTC), imp
<i...@tioat.net> wrote:
[snip some discussion of checkgroups for alt.* and free.*]
> Now when it comes to the alt
> groups, that's a whole different game. And my game is trying to get
> that system used there... and even in the free groups. I have no
> idea what Tim would think about that but what the hell, I'll throw
> it out there anyway.
Skirvin is not the boss of free.*, and probably doesn't want to be.
How do you currently decide which alt.* and free.* groups to create on
your server?
My recommendation for anybody starting up a new server is to grab an
active file from a long-established, reputable server (such as
individual.net), and create the alt.* and free.* groups that seem not
to be dead. For example, you could create groups whose high water mark
and low water mark differ by x, where x could be anything from 5 to
500 depending on how many groups you want to start with.
After that, add groups your users request.
For an established server, the process might be more complicated, but
surely it's not impossible to write a script to monitor logs and
remove groups that your users aren't interested in reading?
imp
You can't be serious. How is it *not* a network issue when you have
multiple sites exchanging information. Are you trying to say there
should be no coordination between sites?
>>>That's the trouble. Usenet lacks central authority.
>
>>And that's the main attraction for me.
>
> You don't seem to accept the fact that whether control messages are
> processed at a particular site is up to that site's administrator. Nor
> do you accept the fact that because it's a local decision and not a
> decision of the hierarchy administrators, we must not speak of control
> messages as if they were final authority, let alone the be-all and
> end-all of the "system".
Excuse me? Control messages are the only way to add or remove groups
that I know of. Is there another way or are you just talking about
accepting control messages sent by other sites?
Let's talk about bambi control messages. I have no problem with
accepting their control messages nor do I have a problem with them
being the final authority when it comes to the administration of the
bambi groups. Each time I've made a little noise about something
concerning the bambi groups, they have responded. This latest deal
with the current events group was answered in a way that made sense
to me. Tell me why I shouldn't accept their control messages. If you
think this is a bad idea, please be specific so I can try to
understand why I should manage that hierarchy locally.
Fine.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>>Not quite.
There is no coordination. You keep trying to discuss the way things
should be, but that's beyond anything you have the ability to influence.
>>>>That's the trouble. Usenet lacks central authority.
>>>And that's the main attraction for me.
>>You don't seem to accept the fact that whether control messages are
>>processed at a particular site is up to that site's administrator. Nor
>>do you accept the fact that because it's a local decision and not a
>>decision of the hierarchy administrators, we must not speak of control
>>messages as if they were final authority, let alone the be-all and
>>end-all of the "system".
>Excuse me? Control messages are the only way to add or remove groups
>that I know of.
No. Depending on how a site is configured, if a control message is acted
upon, it calls the server's commands for creating and removing groups
and maintenance of the active file and newsgroups file and other chores.
Of course the system's administrator can issue this command himself. He
does not need to process a control message to change the set of
newsgroups he offers to his users.
>Let's talk about bambi control messages. I have no problem with
>accepting their control messages nor do I have a problem with them
>being the final authority when it comes to the administration of the
>bambi groups.
You've said this. I am not disputing this. It's your system, so it's
your call. It has nothing to do with what anyone else might do.
>Tell me why I shouldn't accept their control messages.
It's not my place to do so. In fact, if it meets your needs, then you
should continue to do so.
Jeremy Nixon
> There's now a suggestion from one of the moderators that an
> alternative would be to find a new moderator or moderators.
Well, the group didn't fail because of bad moderation or lack of a moderator;
it failed because no one is using it. I don't see how a new moderator is
going to help the situation.
> What happens if somebody who would like to be a moderator reads that
> suggestion on Sunday after working a busy six-day week? Oops! Too
> late!
What if they're currently climbing K2? Or doing a stint on the International
Space Station?
I mean, it's a reasonable point, but I'm just not seeing any real potential
benefit here.
Adam H. Kerman
>>There's now a suggestion from one of the moderators that an
>>alternative would be to find a new moderator or moderators.
>Well, the group didn't fail because of bad moderation or lack of a moderator;
>it failed because no one is using it. I don't see how a new moderator is
>going to help the situation.
Do you see how promoting it might help? Why can't proponents be expected
to follow through on their duties?
Peter J Ross
<~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There's now a suggestion from one of the moderators that an
>> alternative would be to find a new moderator or moderators.
>
> Well, the group didn't fail because of bad moderation or lack of a moderator;
> it failed because no one is using it. I don't see how a new moderator is
> going to help the situation.
A new moderator might be willing to promote the group.
Anyway, perhaps the group *did* fail because of bad moderation. After
all, the expert us.* checkgrouper known as Tim Skirvin was involved in
it.
>> What happens if somebody who would like to be a moderator reads that
>> suggestion on Sunday after working a busy six-day week? Oops! Too
>> late!
>
> What if they're currently climbing K2? Or doing a stint on the International
> Space Station?
You think you're being sarcastic, don't you? But in fact potential
moderaters might have been busy with the activities you mention.
> I mean, it's a reasonable point, but I'm just not seeing any real potential
> benefit here.
I'm seeing no "real potential benefit" in having constructive
suggestions ignored even when I express them politely.
I'm close to inviting Adam and Brian to tell me again "I told you so".
To conclude my flirtation with you (plur.), I'll repeat my three
reasonable requirements for the Board to cease to be laughable in my
eyes:
1. Expel the incompetent, malicious Skirvin kook.
2. Cut all ties with the incompetent, malicious Kamens kook.
3. Shut down your silly NGP treehouse.
Fixing your three worst problems ain't rocket science.
Peter J Ross
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Timmy was the original proponent for t.c-e. Surely you don't expect
*him* to behave like a grown-up?
Aratzio
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> got double secret
probation for writing:
>Some Guy wrote:
>> imp wrote:
>>
>>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the
>>>> moderated newsgroup talk.current-events.
>>> 1: Remove the moderated flag.
>>> 2: Keep the group.
>>> 3: Problem solved.
>>
>> All I see is spam postings. How do they get posted in a supposedly
>> moderated newsgroup?
>>
>>> What is wrong with yous peoples? Current events is not a topic
>>> to discuss on usenet now? Y'all are getting more ____ed up by
>>> the day.
>>
>> Maybe there might be some actual, real traffic in that group if it
>> wasn't moderated.
>>
>> Who's the moderator anyways?
>
> Auto pilot?
ITYM "Otto"
(nvecynar)
Mark Kramer
>
>> There's now a suggestion from one of the moderators that an
>> alternative would be to find a new moderator or moderators.
>
>Well, the group didn't fail because of bad moderation or lack of a moderator;
>it failed because no one is using it.
Well, nobody has had an article approved. That isn't necessarily the same as
nobody trying to use it.
>I don't see how a new moderator is going to help the situation.
Well, if the "spam filter robomoderator" is rejecting valid articles,
perhaps a new moderator would make the effort of looking to see if the
system was working properly and not losing email ... oh, wait, I may
have to explain that concept.
>> What happens if somebody who would like to be a moderator reads that
>> suggestion on Sunday after working a busy six-day week? Oops! Too
>> late!
>
>What if they're currently climbing K2? Or doing a stint on the International
>Space Station?
How about if they are just away from their email like some Bambies are
for periods of time? Do you get a thrill out of rejecting an idea because
obviously extreme problems won't be solved by using it?
>I mean, it's a reasonable point, but I'm just not seeing any real potential
>benefit here.
Well, how about this one. Instead of losing a newsgroup and the people
who would be using it by rmgrouping it, you wind up with an active
moderated group.
No, I guess not. It's much better to remove the submission address and
issue an rmgroup that is roundly ignored, so when people actually do try
to come use the group they'll find it on their servers but submissions
will bounce with no valid moderator address anymore. That will vastly
improve the status and stature of Usenet in the eyes of the newbie public.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote:
>>>Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>There's now a suggestion from one of the moderators that an
>>>>alternative would be to find a new moderator or moderators.
>>>Well, the group didn't fail because of bad moderation or lack of a moderator;
>>>it failed because no one is using it. I don't see how a new moderator is
>>>going to help the situation.
>>Do you see how promoting it might help? Why can't proponents be expected
>>to follow through on their duties?
>Timmy was the original proponent for t.c-e. Surely you don't expect
>*him* to behave like a grown-up?
I expect Bambi to make a proponent clean up the mess he made,
like D. Stussy.
Jeremy Nixon
> I'm seeing no "real potential benefit" in having constructive
> suggestions ignored even when I express them politely.
Who is ignoring them?
> 3. Shut down your silly NGP treehouse.
Would you object if the target of this proposed removal were NGP?
Adam H. Kerman
>>I'm seeing no "real potential benefit" in having constructive
>>suggestions ignored even when I express them politely.
>Who is ignoring them?
>>3. Shut down your silly NGP treehouse.
>Would you object if the target of this proposed removal were NGP?
Well, then. There's really only one way to find out.
William Bagwell
Dave Sill
>
> Well, nobody has had an article approved.
That's not true. Articles have appeared as recently as yesterday.
Unfortunately they're just spam that made it past the filter.
> Well, if the "spam filter robomoderator" is rejecting valid articles,
> perhaps a new moderator would make the effort of looking to see if the
> system was working properly and not losing email ...
There is no evidence that valid articles are being rejected.
-Dave
Adam H. Kerman
>Mark Kramer wrote:
>>Well, nobody has had an article approved.
>That's not true. Articles have appeared as recently as yesterday.
>Unfortunately they're just spam that made it past the filter.
That does not contradict what Mark just wrote. What is it with you?
Mark Kramer
Dave Sill <da...@sill.org> wrote:
>Mark Kramer wrote:
>>
>> Well, nobody has had an article approved.
>
>That's not true. Articles have appeared as recently as yesterday.
>Unfortunately they're just spam that made it past the filter.
And spammers are people I would refer to as somebody? Sorry. If you
are going to count "spam" as articles, then count them. If you aren't,
then don't.
>> Well, if the "spam filter robomoderator" is rejecting valid articles,
>> perhaps a new moderator would make the effort of looking to see if the
>> system was working properly and not losing email ...
>
>There is no evidence that valid articles are being rejected.
Well, there was no evidence that board email was not being delivered,
until someone actually looked to see. There is no evidence that anyone
has been looking to see what the "robomod" has been rejecting.
Brian Mailman
> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm seeing no "real potential benefit" in having constructive
>> suggestions ignored even when I express them politely.
>
> Who is ignoring them?
>
>> 3. Shut down your silly NGP treehouse.
>
> Would you object if the target of this proposed removal were NGP?
The "target" is not important here. It's the process involved that is.
B/
Peter J Ross
<~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 3. Shut down your silly NGP treehouse.
>
> Would you object if the target of this proposed removal were NGP?
I'd object to wasting time on an RFD. Just do it.
dvus
> In news.groups on Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:54:23 +0000 (UTC), imp
> <i...@tioat.net> wrote:
>> Dave Sill wrote:
>>> imp wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm assuming that the activity in the group was not helped by being
>>>> moderated.
>>>
>>> I don't think there's any evidence for that assumption. The group was
>>> robomoderated only to block spam.
>>
>> And *they* said those robots all agreed. AI is something that has
>> always fascinated me.
>
> Why is AI something that has always fascinated you, imp?
>
>> Are there any plans to give them a seat on the board?
>
> How would you feel if there were any plans to give them a seat on the
> board?
Buncha kids, probably never tried to outmaneuver Eliza!
--
dvus
dvus
> Fheryl lbh pna'g or frevbhf.
Jungrire, whfg qba'g pnyy zr "frevbhf"!
--
qihf
dvus
[...]
> It's odd that Dave Sill gave the impression that Skirvin was the only
> moderator, but no doubt he merely expressed himself unclearly, just as
> there's no doubt that my suggestion that an extra five days should be
> allowed for discussions such as these is an example of "obstructionist
> hate" and further proof that I'm an "asshole" and a "liar".
Be that as it may, I also see no reason to fast-track removals since, in my
view at least, they're kinda permanent. As has been noted, if someone has what
they feel is a good reason to keep a group it should be considered, and five
days isn't enough to be assured everyone who wants to comment has had that
opportunity. Even the discussion of the creation of "obvious" groups was given
more time than that!
--
dvus